Are You Still Trusting The Science?
(media.conspiracies.win)
Comments (43)
sorted by:
Look into how coffee is good/bad/good/bad/sorta good/sorta bad for you over the years with these "studies".
I'm waiting for, "sex to cause cancer"
LOL
Lol I was going to post the same thing. Every other day coffee is going to make you live forever or stab you in your sleep.
Im old enough to remember this egg thing changing 4 times. Butter too. margarine is still bad.
That bullshit have nothing to do with science.
And yes, the only thing I trust is science. That is why I don't trust MSM, BigPharma, whatever.
Shouldn't you TEST the science, rather than trust it, according to The Scientific Method?
Science itself is about testing, checking, validation and replication to be shure you are not fooled and the thing you study is for real.
Science is not some "truth" or whatever. Science is a method of finding truth.
There absolutely can't be things like "consensus" or "settled" in science. Even small discovery could change everything that appear to be solid.
Did you test any of these studies mentioned in The Daily Mail, Mr. Scientist?
Nobody did. Even those, who should. That tells enough about that studies.
All that "health science" is not a science at all now. It is pure marketing. Corporations/state openly providing grants to the so called "scientists" not for research, not for finding truth, but for result they expect. If those "scientists" will not give them desired result, next grant will be provided to those who will.
Same with other "sciences" - sociology, history, climate, and so on. Even physics and chemistry got that cancer.
But all that only make real science much more precious thing.
You're just making shit up which is an insult to real scientists.
No, by and large he's telling the truth. Why do you think 'global warming' is still talked about? Any real scientist knows it's bullshit, but there's so much money in it that the 'research' keeps on going.
What about vaccine research?
you ARE the science.
No. I'm a scientist. That means if you state something, you should provide a replicateable and verifiable proof of your statement, that I could check by myself, independently. That was the main idea of sharing and publishing scientific papers - to allow other scientists to verify invention or discovery. Today that papers mostly just advertising or propaganda. Read about "replication crisis". Paper without replication by others means nothing in science. You could declare anything, but without independent validation it will be just bullshit.
~ Your Friends at the WEF
Science could not be trademarked. :)
It's obvious that elites heavily want to turn inside out everything, especially things that are dangerous for them. Of course they try hard to turn everybody away from the science, because it is a method of finding truth. If you buy their crap - you already lose.
The Science Changes.
Science that's not closely linked to engineering isn't particularly important. Even if Maxwell's equations turn out to be false, they still describe with pinpoint accuracy the functioning of electrical works and fiber optics.
It's become clear that when people talk about 'science/scientists', they're really talking about engineers.
Of course. To experiment you need a lot of engineering. In turn, engineering itself is implementation of science results.
If you remember history of science there was completely wrong theory of flogiston - kind of weightless matter that represent heat. Despite being wrong that theory perfectly allowed basic thermodynamics calculations.
Unfortunately, today when people talk about science/scientists, they talk about completely distorted and perverted imitation that was created by MSM and mass culture.
To do science, i.e. to study new things, you have to use previous results of science. To use them, you have to implement them for real. Implementing science results is engineering. So, to be a scientist you have to be engineer. To be an engineer you have to be a scientist.
The Daily Mail is not The Science
Did you even check to see which studies The Daily Mail is citing?
Which of those studies is incorrect?
All of them. Never replicated, funded by shitty institutions and so on.
You're saying you never replicated either of the studies.
I'm not interested in that crap at all. I eat eggs because I like them, not because they are good or bad for something. I'm not obsessed with health, dietes, calories and so on. Eggs are natural and tasty, that's all I need to know about them.
But those who obsessed with all that stuff, or those who have professional interest should. But somehow they don't care to validate, check, replicate anything. If they are not interested, why should I?
I replicated some fringe medical things that was interesting for me - f.e. using chili pepper powder to treat wounds - it works, it is painless despite the expectations, it make the scar less noticeable, but it doesn't noticeably accelerate wound healing, so it is not very useful for me.
If I find something interesting or promising, I'll definitely try to replicate it. But eggs? Seriously?
Do you find vaccine science interesting?
Vaccine science is completely bogus.
Yes, I do. May be you didn't noticed, but it was science that revealed all that not-a-vaccine fraud. And those who push all that vaccinehoax have nothing to do with science at all.
It's even funny - you perfectly know, that all that MSM, state agencies, BigPharma are total liars that lie about everything. But for some unknown reason you blindly believe them when they tell you that they are the scientists and shit thet they are busy with is science. It's ridiculous!
It was Kary Mullis, inventor of PCR who posthumously destroyed PCR madness. It was Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA tech who become one of the most active oppositioners of not-a-vaccines, it was numerous scientists who connect the dots in that hoax and destroy globalists narrative.
And if you think that scientist is a person with some paper from university - you are totally wrong. Scientist is anybody who is smart and brave enough to search and find the real answers for questions others don't want, don't care or just afraid to ask.
Who is The Science?
Ah yes. The renowned scientific journal DAILY MAIL.
Fucking retarded moron.
You sound very elite. Genius even. Surely you understand that The Daily Mail is referencing studies and doesn't actually conduct them. Anyone can cite a scientific study. Anyone can also conduct an experiment. Do you deny the research, or do you deny the messenger? Are you denying the science because of the messenger? Would you believe the study if someone else reported it?
Which studies is the DM referencing?
I bet you cannot cite them.
Why don't you research the studies and test them yourself Mr. Science Guy?
I am not the one claiming that they exist, you are.
Did you moron never learn how to present an argument in school? Did yiu drop out before it came to that part?
The Daily Mail already cited them in these articles... You're saying I can't look up a Daily Mail article?
You didn't even link to the articles, idiot. How do they know they even exist?